Radiotherapy Quality Assurance for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Indicators to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer in Spain

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a set of criteria and indicators to evaluate the quality of care of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify valuable criteria/indicators for the assessment of the quality of care in HNC. With the aid of a technical group, a scientific committee of oncologists specialised in HNC used selected criteria to propose indicators that were evaluated with a two-round Delphi method. Indicators on which consensus was achieved were then prioritised by the scientific committee to develop a final set of indicators.

RESULTS

We proposed a list of 50 indicators used in the literature or developed by us to be evaluated with a Delphi method. There was consensus on the appropriateness of 47 indicators in the first round; the remaining 3 achieved consensus in the second round. The 50 indicators were scored to prioritise them, leading to a final selection of 29 indicators related to structure (3), process (22), or outcome (4) and covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes in patients with HNC. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for each indicator, with their criterion, definition, formula for use in real-world clinical practice, rationale, and acceptable level of attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a set of 29 evidence-based and expert-supported indicators for evaluating the quality of care in HNC, covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes.

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT

Background

FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial.

Design

Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs.

Sub-studies

Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling.

Limitations

A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied.

Participants

Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies.

Results

Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy.

Interpretation

Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

Future work

Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported.

Trial registration

FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Moving Experience from North America to Developing Country to Approach a Desired Level of Quality Assurance in Head and Neck Radiation Therapy

Evidence is lacking correlation between head and neck (HN) radiation oncology fellowship training and quality assurance (QA) round decision for plan modifications. This study was conducted to identify the association between training and changes in QA decisions. From 2007 to 2018, data on HN cancer cases presented at departmental QA rounds were prospectively collected. Then, we retrospectively analyzed the collected data to determine the impact of fellowship training on QA decisions. Cases were divided into pre-fellowship group (January 2007-September 2014) and post-fellowship group (October 2014-December 2018). Multivariable analysis (MVA) evaluated variables that could be associated with decreased frequencies of QA modification rates. From 2007 to 2018, 1266 HN cancer patients were identified; 728 patients were in the pre-fellowship group and 538 patients in the post-fellowship group. On MVA, fellowship training transformed QA decisions from more to less modifications (modified vs. approved; OR, 0.135; 95% CI, 0.076-0.240; p = 0.0001), increased approval rate for advanced T and N categories (T3-4 vs. T0-T2; OR, 0.798; 95% CI, 1.892-4.929; p = 0.0001 and N2-3 vs. N0-1; OR, 0.865; 95% CI, 1.454-3.423; p = 0.0002). By type of modification, fellowship training demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in rates of several types of modification that include target volume definition, target volume delineation, and dose (all p < 0.05). Our study determines the impact of the HN radiation oncology fellowship on decreased QA modification rates.

Plan quality in radiotherapy treatment planning - Review of the factors and challenges

A high-quality treatment plan aims to best achieve the clinical prescription, balancing high target dose to maximise tumour control against sufficiently low organ-at-risk dose for acceptably low toxicity. Treatment planning (TP) includes multiple steps from simulation/imaging and segmentation to technical plan production and reporting. Consistent quality across this process requires close collaboration and communication between clinical and technical experts, to clearly understand clinical requirements and priorities and also practical uncertainties, limitations and compromises. TP quality depends on many aspects, starting from commissioning and quality management of the treatment planning system (TPS), including its measured input data and detailed understanding of TPS models and limitations. It requires rigorous quality assurance of the whole planning process and it links to plan deliverability, assessable by measurement-based verification. This review highlights some factors influencing plan quality, for consideration for optimal plan construction and hence optimal outcomes for each patient. It also indicates some challenges, sources of difference and current developments. The topics considered include: the evolution of TP techniques; dose prescription issues; tools and methods to evaluate plan quality; and some aspects of practical TP. The understanding of what constitutes a high-quality treatment plan continues to evolve with new techniques, delivery methods and related evidence-based science. This review summarises the current position, noting developments in the concept and the need for further robust tools to help achieve it.

Radiotherapy Quality Assurance in the PORTEC-3 (TROG 08.04) Trial

AIMS

Quality assurance in radiotherapy (QART) is essential to ensure the scientific integrity of a clinical trial. This paper reports the findings of the retrospective QART assessment for all centres that participated in PORTEC-3; a randomised controlled trial that compared pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy to the pelvis followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial showed an overall survival benefit for the addition of the chemotherapy in the management of women with high-risk endometrial cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicians were invited to upload a randomly selected case/s treated at each of the participating sites. Panel reviewers analysed the contours to certify that the target volumes and organ at risk structures were contoured according to guidelines. The results were categorised into acceptable, minor variation, major variation or unevaluable. The radiotherapy plans were dosimetrically evaluated using the well-established Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) protocol.

RESULTS

Between August 2010 and January 2018, data from 146 patients of 686 consecutively treated patients were retrospectively reviewed. All 16 Australia and New Zealand and 71 of 77 international centres uploaded data for evaluation. In total, 3514 dosimetric and contour variables were reviewed. Of these, 3136 variables were deemed acceptable (89.2%), with 335 minor (9.6%) and 43 major variations (1.2%). Major contour variations included the clinical target volume vaginal vault, clinical target volume parametria and differential planning target volume vault expansion.

CONCLUSION

The results of the QART assessment confirmed high uniformity and low rates of both minor and major deviations in contouring and dosimetry in all sites. This supports the safe introduction of the PORTEC-3 treatment protocol into routine clinical practice.

Relevance of Combined Electron and Photon Beams in Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Cancers in the Era of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

Introduction External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for head and neck (H&N) cancers continues to be delivered using varied technologies, ranging from the old two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2DRT) techniques to the modern three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in different centers in India. Due to limitations of spinal cord tolerance, electron and photon beams are combined in 2DRT and 3DCRT techniques for treating nodal volume of the H&N cases. However, many centers having modern technology practice IMRT/VMAT in place of electron beams. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of combined electron and photon beams in radiotherapy of H&N cancers and its relevance in the modern era of IMRT/VMAT.

Materials and Methods Data were collected through a survey conducted on cancer centers in India where radiotherapy is being given by 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMR/VMAT for the treatment of head and neck cancers.

Results The mean percentage of H&N (H&N) cases among all cases were 39.2% (standard deviation [SD]: 14.22), out of which 16.63% (SD: 20.83) were treated with a combination of photon and electron beams and 49.73% (SD: 37.41) were treated with IMRT/VMAT. The average percentage of H&N cases of government institutes was 38.39% (SD: 14.11) and that of private institutes was 40.14% (SD: 14.11). Patients treated with photon and electron combination and IMRT/VMAT were 22.19% (SD: 11.24) and 24.05% (SD: 23.99), respectively, in government institutes, and 10.29% (SD: 11.24) and 79.09% (SD: 26.75) in private institutes.

Conclusion As per this study, we conclude that despite the availability of IMRT/VMAT, a combination of electron and photon beams is still relevant in India. Since a large proportion of the patients are still treated with the electron and photon combination, it is imperative that further studies on field–junction dosimetry should be conducted to ensure accurate dose delivery.